Working position of the killer

[Brenda]

.

There is a huge thread somewhere on Casebook about the possibility that MJK3 is a fraud. I'm afraid I don't have time to look for it right now, but it's out there.

It is a very unpopular opinion to think this photo is a fraud. I remember a poster being roasted for daring to even question it. However, it IS a very strange photo that raises a lot more questions than it answers.

I personally don't think the photo is an intentional fraud. If I remember correctly, the photo was in the possession of a man who was giving speeches about the murders. I think there's a chance the photo could be a mock-up to demonstrate a point the speaker was making regarding the murders.

I do think it would be wise to be cautious when relying on this particular photo as concrete evidence.

[Joshua Rogan]

Pierre,

If the table and bed are pushed against the door to prevent intruders entering - as postulated by you in another thread - how is there room for the killer to stand by the table when carrying out his diabolical dissection? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stand the other side of the bed? The side on which he (according to your theory) entered no. 13, the side he pushed the furniture from and the side Mary was lying when attacked. Why would he clamber over the bed to stand in a cramped corner?

[Pierre]

Pierre,

If the table and bed are pushed against the door to prevent intruders entering - as postulated by you in another thread - how is there room for the killer to stand by the table when carrying out his diabolical dissection?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stand the other side of the bed? The side on which he (according to your theory) entered no. 13, the side he pushed the furniture from and the side Mary was lying when attacked. Why would he clamber over the bed to stand in a cramped corner?

Hi,

The red circle marks the space for his working area. He then had the victim on the right side (he was probably right handed).

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

The working position of the killer in room 13 depends on a few variables, like what was his predominant hand for one. What can be said is that;

a) There is insufficient room between the bed and the partition wall for the killer to have worked from there. Plus some of the bedding is stuffed down beside the bed, wedged against the partition wall.
b) The evidence suggests Marys throat cut sent arterial spray onto the partition wall, which indicates that she was on the r/h side of the bed when it happened...likely facing the wall.
c) Unless the killers right arm was under her neck or head the right side of her artery could not be accessed using the right hand, from the left of the body, which is the probable location, due to the lack of space on the right. The cut was evidently made from right to left, suggesting her right artery caused the spray on the wall
d) The killer must have moved the body into the middle of the bed, if she was on her right side during the attack, that could be accomplished simply by rolling her left, onto her back.
e) The killer would have his back to the windows, and the door, while working.

[Pierre]

The working position of the killer in room 13 depends on a few variables, like what was his predominant hand for one. What can be said is that;

a) There is insufficient room between the bed and the partition wall for the killer to have worked from there. Plus some of the bedding is stuffed down beside the bed, wedged against the partition wall.

> If he came in through the door between number 26 and 13 he would have all the space he needed.

b) The evidence suggests Marys throat cut sent arterial spray onto the partition wall, which indicates that she was on the r/h side of the bed when it happened...likely facing the wall.

>I agree. The killer could have closed the door behind him just enough to be able to cut her throat. The arterial spray would then partly reach the door.

c) Unless the killers right arm was under her neck or head the right side of her artery could not be accessed using the right hand, from the left of the body, which is the probable location, due to the lack of space on the right. The cut was evidently made from right to left, suggesting her right artery caused the spray on the wall

> The killer coming in from number 26 and standing beside the bed solves all these problems.

d) The killer must have moved the body into the middle of the bed, if she was on her right side during the attack, that could be accomplished simply by rolling her left, onto her back.

> Making space for himself to work from left to right after having barricaded the entrance door with the table and the bed.

e) The killer would have his back to the windows, and the door, while working.

> Only at the windows.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I know that you've convinced yourself that a fixed door on a wall is actually a usable door, but that's simply not the case here, so I cant see your arguments holding water. The partition wall was made by scrap materials, including the old front door to #26, which accessed the shed. It was not hung..it was nailed. I think you need to read some more reports about this.

" A partition had been erected cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's court"

The "barricaded" windows at 26 Dorset likely referred to the 2 windows in Marys room that faced the alcove, not the 2 windows facing Dorset. We have pictorial evidence of that as well. There would be no reason to block access or views from the street, the door marked 26 accessed the shed, and room 13 could not be accessed without going into the courtyard via the archway...which was guarded.

I understand that youll disagree, but I am certain about whats being stated here. Once you've studied these things straight up, upside down and sideways over 30 plus years you tend to get pretty familiar with the actual territory. The killer came in via the windows or the door......and not down the chimney either.

[Michael W Richards]

To add, many lodging house doors that faced streets like Dorset used the front door as a means to access storage, where carts from the street could offload goods for the house to be stored.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I think you need to read some more reports about this.

" A partition had been erected cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's court"

Hi Michael,

I disagree on everything you say here. I think we should not read any more of the same talk about Millerīs Court but we should start questioning things.

MJK1 for instance. It is believed to be the best description of the murder site. MJK3 is sometimes thought to be a fraud.

I say we should hypothesize that MJK3 is the most important photograph and MJK1 is not.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

To add, many lodging house doors that faced streets like Dorset used the front door as a means to access storage, where carts from the street could offload goods for the house to be stored.

Not talking about offloading goods here. Talking about the Whitechapel killer.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Regards Pierre[/B]

Im ok with you disagreeing Pierre, I can see that you have some ideas that pivot on this particular point. However all the contemporary references to that wall, and some made a few years later, support my statement that the wall was constructed of scrap materials including an old door from the shed with a faded 26 on it. There was no access through Marys partition wall unless it was breached forcibly, and the fact that it is stated that it was made by using scrap fits well with a room that was rented to Mary for about 10-12d a week when Unfortunates paid 4d for a bed for one night. Mary was in arrears for about 2 1/2 weeks to the tune of 28d.

The killer entered room 13 via one of the alcove windows or the door to Millers Court. The only access to the interior of 26 was the doorway inside the archway, not via the shed.

[Rosella]

^ John McCarthy in his Inquest testimony on Mary Kelly deposed the rent for Mary's room 'was supposed to be 4s and 6d a week. Deceased was in arrears 29s. I was to be paid the rent weekly. Arrears are got the best you can.'

Mary and Joe had probably ceased paying the rent when he lost his job. As 29s is an odd total Mary may have paid a sixpence here and there to try and get the arrears down, without much success.

[JadenCollins]

C4, you amaze me with your such kind posts

[Pierre]

Im ok with you disagreeing Pierre, I can see that you have some ideas that pivot on this particular point. However all the contemporary references to that wall, and some made a few years later, support my statement that the wall was constructed of scrap materials including an old door from the shed with a faded 26 on it. There was no access through Marys partition wall unless it was breached forcibly, and the fact that it is stated that it was made by using scrap fits well with a room that was rented to Mary for about 10-12d a week when Unfortunates paid 4d for a bed for one night. Mary was in arrears for about 2 1/2 weeks to the tune of 28d.

The killer entered room 13 via one of the alcove windows or the door to Millers Court. The only access to the interior of 26 was the doorway inside the archway, not via the shed.

Hi Michael,

We have to use a critical perspective on sources which are all talking intensively about a wall in a house in Spitalfields.

Why? Because it is a wall in a house of a murder scene and not just any murder scene but one - an perhaps the worst - of Jack the Ripper.

Doing forensics in that time, the police of course did not share everything they knew with the public. And naturally, only those who did see the crime scene knew how it really looked.

What we have today is their perspective through a camera lens. We can see a part of what they saw.

But apart from what they saw, they gave information to the press.
And that is a completely different thing.

Now, the questions when you are thinking critically about the talk of the wall in room 13 are for instance:

Did the police have a possibility to tell the whole truth about the crime scene?

Could they tell the press all the details? Rember the short inquest and itīs lack of details!

Is it possible there were details of the crime that the police did not tell the press?

Are the statements in the press, given by the police, objective or do you find a tendency in the sources? For exampel the tendency of describing the wall as "just a wall and nothing else".

What is the function of the sources? Is it to give the public the unbiased truth about the full details of the crime scene - or could it be to tell the public what the police wanted them to know?

I think a function of the sources is to assure the public that there was no connection between room 13 and room 26. Why? There is a lot of talk about a wall in the articles. Why should the police bother to get this information about a trivial matter as a wall through to the press if they did not have a reason?

Surely, they could just have called it "a room" and nothing else.

And the partition wall "cutting the room off from the rest of the house" could just have been called a wall. Or preferebly not mentioned at all.

So the frequent talk about this trivial matter can have an important function for the police.

And we must realize this and not automatically believe what the police wanted the public to believe.

Also, we have to consider the MJK3 photo as beeing the most important photo.

It showed up many years after the murder when no one was left to remember the reason why this photo should not be shown to the public.

If we interpret old sources and think critically about them, we might get information from them that earlier generations of ripperologists did not have.

But if we get stuck with old ideas, we might not see what the sources are showing us.

So for the sake of the memory of the victims, I think we have a responsibility to think critically.

This is not a game. It is reality.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

We have to use a critical perspective on sources which are all talking intensively about a wall in a house in Spitalfields.

Why? Because it is a wall in a house of a murder scene and not just any murder scene but one - an perhaps the worst - of Jack the Ripper.

Doing forensics in that time, the police of course did not share everything they knew with the public. And naturally, only those who did see the crime scene knew how it really looked.

What we have today is their perspective through a camera lens. We can see a part of what they saw.

But apart from what they saw, they gave information to the press.
And that is a completely different thing.

Now, the questions when you are thinking critically about the talk of the wall in room 13 are for instance:

Did the police have a possibility to tell the whole truth about the crime scene?

Could they tell the press all the details? Rember the short inquest and itīs lack of details!

Is it possible there were details of the crime that the police did not tell the press?

Are the statements in the press, given by the police, objective or do you find a tendency in the sources? For exampel the tendency of describing the wall as "just a wall and nothing else".

What is the function of the sources? Is it to give the public the unbiased truth about the full details of the crime scene - or could it be to tell the public what the police wanted them to know?

I think a function of the sources is to assure the public that there was no connection between room 13 and room 26. Why? There is a lot of talk about a wall in the articles. Why should the police bother to get this information about a trivial matter as a wall through to the press if they did not have a reason?

Surely, they could just have called it "a room" and nothing else.

And the partition wall "cutting the room off from the rest of the house" could just have been called a wall. Or preferebly not mentioned at all.

So the frequent talk about this trivial matter can have an important function for the police.

And we must realize this and not automatically believe what the police wanted the public to believe.

Also, we have to consider the MJK3 photo as beeing the most important photo.

It showed up many years after the murder when no one was left to remember the reason why this photo should not be shown to the public.

If we interpret old sources and think critically about them, we might get information from them that earlier generations of ripperologists did not have.

But if we get stuck with old ideas, we might not see what the sources are showing us.

So for the sake of the memory of the victims, I think we have a responsibility to think critically.

This is not a game. It is reality.

Regards Pierre

Many of us have ideas that include information being withheld Pierre, but proving that requires some evidence that there was some sort of collusion or suppressed information. I cannot know whether there was some disinformation used here, there has never been any evidence presented that demonstrates that it was, so unless you've discovered some hard proof it was, it remains a purely speculative concept.

What you have with the JtR cases are investigations that were run and/or supervised with the highest ranking counterespionage personelle in London at that time. Not men with a track record of solving violent crimes, but men trained to deceive and suppress. I say this to show you I am not easily convinced of any "truths" in print, which is one reason I challenge the evidence to clearly demonstrate that the opinions of the police about how many murders were by one man were defensible within known physical evidence.

Which it seems to me, they weren't.

[David Orsam]

This is not a game. It is reality.

It's not reality at all Pierre, it's fantasy. I mean, your evidence for there being an actual functioning door in the partition of Kelly's room turns out to be nothing more that the newspapers described her room as being separate from the rest of 26 Dorset Street. It's just ridiculous. The newspapers described it that way because that is what it was. Saying "a room" would not have conveyed the fact that it was an artificial space created from a larger space in the house, so that 13 Millers Court was the same as 26 Dorset Street. That is something readers of the newspapers would have wanted to know. You tell us that we have a responsibility to "think critically" but I suggest you need to think critically about your own posts because they are becoming more and more nonsensical while remaining totally detached from the actual evidence in the case. In fact, you also seem to now be inventing quotes such as "just a wall and nothing else" . If you can't interpret the evidence properly, please at least stop falsifying it.